Thursday, 28 October 2010

Diversity is strength: It’s also dousing your daughters in acid.

I've pointed out on countless occasions that, as an ethnic group, Somalis are by far the worst people on the face of the planet. Murderous, duplicitous and thieving, they make the Afghanis look like Hare Krishna or the Amish. They are now infesting the western world, and everywhere – everywhere – they go all sorts of violent problems follow.

While they can't be accused of messing about when sorting out a problem, the case of Iman Omar Yousef takes some beating. If I may use that expression in the circumstances. You see this ‘Birmingham Mum’ as she’s described in the MSM (in fact she’s a so-called asylum seeker) stabbed and beat her three year old daughter and then, for good measure, doused her in acid.

As one does.

The condition of the body when discovered by police was so gruesome that one of them actually collapsed at the scene.

Why did this ‘Birmingham Mum’ acted like this. Well, apparently ‘she saw people who were not there, and heard voices in her head’ A condition that accurately describes me and my drinking buddies as we stagger home from the pub after a session. I learned too that the perp’s mother instructed, inter alia, that this ‘smiling girl’ should 'get the attention she’s entitled to'.

Courtesy of the British taxpayer, I need hardly add.

Now you’ll be glad to know that Ireland has its own thriving Somali, ahem, ‘community’ of over 3,000 murderous savages souls. But we don't seem to be treating them very well. Honestly. I felt a catch in my throat as I read the harrowing tale of Safia Sharif. She fled Somalia and came to Ireland in 2005 after spending some time in Dubai. That’s right, she left a Muslim country and came to Ireland. Last time I did the Dubai trip it cost me over £4,000.

Anyway, listen to what happened to this unfortunate lady. First, the Irish sent her to the village of Cong. This is an absolutely divine place, quiet, picturesque, nestling between two lakes. But according to Safia “it was very small and there were no Somalis there’ Give it time girl, give it time. She thought being sent to Cong was ‘cruel’.

Indeed.

But it gets even worse for the poor wretch. “The hostel was the worst possible. It was winter and the hotel was cold and the food was bad’. Presumably not halal. She also resents the length of time it’s taking our government to assess her asylum application: “It’s a big crime to leave human being in direct provision for this length of time’ She is also, apparently ‘exhausted and depressed’.

Isn't that dreadful?

The one strange thing about this tragic story tho' is that she has a string of kids, who all look five or younger. So, despite being ‘exhausted and depressed” and ‘lacking all privacy’ . she obviously has had no trouble in making the beast with two backs on a regular basis. These future little cut-throats were of course all delivered via Ireland’s overloaded and near-bankrupt health service.

I urge you all to donate generously to this unfortunate woman. She might leave Ireland if you don't. So there!

Amazing how, the UK ans US will flat out refuse a visa to a white person who is required by a company in those countries for high tech industries, yet fall over themselves to import what amounts to nothing less than a bio-weapon.

Horrors-the food was bad-mushy green peas no doubt.Is Ireland MAD???Why are they letting these savages in??I would think as an island nation that would present difficulty for foreign invaders-as if Ireland doesn't have enough problems with their own Protestants and Catholics-makes one long for the days of the "troubles"(I speak as the product of a mixed marriage-mother from England and father from Ireland)

The problem is the cursed European Convention on Human Rights which forces all signatory countries to implement this madness. However, in Ireland, and Britain too, we compound this problem by providing too many facilities and an open-ended appeal system funded by the taxpayer.

There would be dozens of succesful Somalian restaurants around the UK and Ireland IF that darned white man just gave them a chance! All this acid-business is merely a natural consequence of having racism shoved at you all year round. Shame on you whitey.

The only thing muslims fear is not the US invading here or there, or israel bombing here or there, actually that give them reasons to complain, the thing they fear most is to be bared to migrate to Europe and the US. This would be the most powerfull antiterror policy the USand Europe could set up and the cheapest too. I guess muslims would be so infuriated they would bomb thenselves at home to protest.

Dead-on, Lioux IX. I would add that the one way to bring them to heel immediately would be to implement a rigid deportation process for any of them involved in a crime. The solution to these troublesome fuckers is quite simple available to us.

Take it from me, they're terrified of being deported from the Dar al Harb!

savant as a former chicago police officer i have seen these sort of atrocities committed against the kids of the sheboons over 30 yrs and am never surprised by them, as a rule most blacks are victims of inbred incestious relations, a fact that most pc types fail to mention, fell awful about the youngsters but what futher would they have if they lived within that enviroment. probaly would have committed the same to next generation, this is what ireland has to look forward to.

The asylum treaties that we're bound by are nothing less than the blueprint for the mongrelisation and destruction of the West.One of the scams being used now is the invaders pretending to be minors, having destroyed their passports en route. Minors must by law be admitted immediately and without conditions. They are then put in accommodation for vulnerable and abused youngsters, which is scarce as it is, and can cost 300 000euro per person per annum. Anyone who has contact with the children must be vetted by the Gardai. But these unidentifiable invaders, who might be any kind of criminals or perverts, face no such checks.

The European Convention on Human Rights (so-called) has had basically zero beneficial effect upon the law-abiding average Joe (or Joelina) - which is not surprising, seeing as it wasn't required in the first place.

If I remember correctly, it was Tony Blair's "finest achievement" (his words) for getting this perverse drivel into English, and I presume Scottish, law. So then, who has it benefitted? Well, all the ne'er do wells, convicted terrorists, bogus asylum seekers and all other general misfits and criminals that the previous law adequately protected, but to whom has now been given super-protection - at the expense of the ordinary man in the street (and that would certainly involve not just extra taxation, either).

The former Labour administration of Blair and cronies has extended the rights of law-breakers, whilst their creeping police-state measures have infringed upon the rights of the law-abiding. Nor will I hold my breath for the current crowd to undo any of his wretched evils.

As for Somali immigrants/asylum seekers...er, I was well aware that Britain had a huge empire in the past but, as big as it was, it never extended into Somaliland. So, yes, the question is: what the heck is going on when even those parts of the non-European world, not reached by the British imperial flag, are now happy recruiting grounds for the wondrously "succesful" multicultural experiment? Though I thoroughly reject the argument that "you were there, so now we're here" by the former colonized (what? the whole sub-continent and much of Africa etc.), arguments were made on that basis in the past for ethnic immigration.

So, again, why the Somalis and many other non-white peoples from around the globe who had zilch to do with British colonization?

Oh, they're asylum seekers. Well, in that case, they should seek asylum in the first country available - but they so often don't, rather they cherry pick. As it is, the whole asylum policy needs a major revamp throughout Europe, of course. The post-war world of 1950 (circa when these asylum measures were introduced) is a very different place today (travel, communication, demographics and very different geopolitics). The simple fact is, whether genuine or not - and many clearly are not - places like Britain, Ireland etc. CANNOT absorb countless numbers of endless asylum seekers.

Rob, yes this minor thing has turned out to be a major coup for the invaders. What galls me about the Irish approach is that we were/are entitled to send them back to the 1st EU country they arrived in. Why didn't we do that? Same reason that we fuck up so much else I guess.

My Dad served with the South African troops in the East Africa Campaign against the Italians (Abyssinia (Later Ethiopia), Eritrea and Somaliland) and in the Western Desert (Libya) Campaign against the Italians and Germans ... a fact that he came to regret later in life.

He was told by a Pommie sergeant that the best thing they could do for the Somalis would be to seal them off from the rest of Africa and starve them to death -- the worst mix imaginable; Arabs and niggers.

On a lighter note, however, he did mention an order posted in the mess in Abyssinia:

'It is an offence to refer to His Imperial Majesty Haile Selassie I, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah, and Elect of God as "that black bastard".

Anyone caught doing so will be fined two shillings and sixpence.'

The politicians kissed their arses, but the regulars felt a little differently.

In fairness I think the ECHR legislation was probably justifiable and understandable when it was introduced shortly after WW 2. However, as everyone else here points out, it is now a pernicious monkey on our shoulders, used for purposes it was never intended for.

Correction: I should have stated that the Human Rights act that Blair introduced in 1998 was an extension into UK law of ECHR - not, of course, ECHR itself. My ire, with regards to Blair and co, was in reference to the former.

Bemused stare got it spot on when he compares these savages to bio-weapons.

The bottom line is that these third world savages will inevitably become part of the future Irish gene pool, its only a matter of time before the Irish population starts resembling Brazil's coffee colored hybrid populace.

Well Savant isn't that always the way? I mean look at how the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution has been used to confer citizenship on aliens due to its mis-interpretation by liberals. The fact of the matter is the law was supposed to protect freed slaves from being disenfranchised. Now every unemployed pregger senorita runs across the border and we have an entire family of new "Americans"...all eligible for Medicaid welfare housing schooling affirmative action etc. etc.

@ Uncle Nasty, Ethiopia wasn't even colonized by the European powers yet its one of the poorest in Africa. Western aid has only created overpopulation and dependancy. Haile Selassie the Ethiopian emperor is considered the incarnation of God by the Rastafarians. The strange thing about the Rastas is that they want to be repatriated back to Africa. Shouldn't they be joining the BNP since their aims are the same and non-whites can join now.

The thing that drives me crazy is the absolute incapacity of loony lefties to learn from their mistakes.

As was pointed out a few months ago, when that little prick Bono did his Live Aid number back in the eighties, there were 37 million starving Ethiopians. The food, aid and money poured in -- and for what?

Now every unemployed pregger senorita runs across the border and we have an entire family of new "Americans"...all eligible for Medicaid welfare housing schooling affirmative action etc. etc.

If they are not natural born citizens, He -- Obama -- is not a natural born citizen. And while a citizen through his mother, He is not natural born, as his father was the subject of a foreign power, and therefore Obama's presidency would be illigetimate.

And there are some others, with white skin, who would fall into the same category.

Born citizens, but not natural born.

The fact of the matter is the law was supposed to protect freed slaves from being disenfranchised.

The states at that time still determined the rules for the franchise. The purpose of the 14th was to make the 1866 Civil Rights Act beyond the power of a temporary legislative majority to repeal:

Be it enacted . . ., That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.

Women were citizens, but usually could not vote. The states still determined, separately, rules for the franchise. The franchise at that time could still be denied to blacks, and the 14th did not prohibit this.

Three years later in 1869 the 15th amendment changed that. But the franchise could still be denied to most blacks for aracial reasons, like illiteracy, and was for many decades.

The 15th amendment of course guaranteed that white women would later get the franchise as well. White women were not going to stand forever being legally inferior to black men.

If the children of illegal aliens are not natural born citizens, then neither is Obama, and his presidency is illegitimate; his father was the subject of a foreign power. A citizen Obama would be, yes, but not natural born, and therefore not eligible to be president.

The 14th did not guarantee blacks the vote. The 15th did. But as the several states still set their several rules for the franchise, blacks could and were mostly denied the franchise under aracial criteria, like illiteracy.

The 15th of course guaranteed that women would some day get the franchise as well. There was no way white women would indefinitely stand being legally inferior to black men.

kulak - I'm with you for the most part but you must agree that 'state's rights' was code for deptiving blacks of the vote, and much more in fact. My own belief is that had the states not abused this power the requisite amendments would have been much harder to swing.

Don't blame the victim Nemesis. Dixie surrendered in 1865, was occupied, and Reconstructed. The 14th was passed one year later. The purpose of the amendments was the purpose of the war, i.e. the subjugation of southern whites to northern authority, with blacks as the weapon.

Too bad Lincoln died. He might not have Reconstructed the South. When Lincoln died, Lee said the South had lost the best friend it had in the North. Lincoln wanted blacks sent back back to Africa, and might even have been enough of a bastard to do it by force.

States rights was a good argument pre-war. Post-war it was not. The war fundamentally changed the government of the U.S.

The cost of keeping a high-risk nutcase in confinement is about £180,000 per annum. So we, the British taxpayer, must pick up the tab for this creature for probably the next 40 years, plus the cost of rearing her sprogs, and ten the cost of keeping them on welfare and in jail when they 'mature'

What a shame. Up until now, I agreed with the general gist of 99% of your arguments.

In this case, you are using a case of schizophrenia to demonise an entire race of people.

Schizophrenia can affect individuals of ANY RACE. Dousing an infant with acid is not normal human behaviour whether they are white, yellow, brown, or black. It goes beyond character and into the realm of severe mental illness.

Like you, I don't want somalis in my country, but you have gone too far in this case.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to strongly argue against immigration but using severe mental illness isn't the way to do it.